This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Specialisation Names & Class 4th Spec Ideas
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Fathersqui
i remember having a shaman tank...it didn't go so well but it was an intertaining ride through deadmines
Post by
759807
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
HS should but it doesn't. The fact that a warlock has this 1 ability shows that warlock healing is possible because if it wasn't such a spell wouldn't exist. By that logic, because mages can give food they should be healers.....
As i said before, you don't create lore to restrict what is possible. A heal spec on a pure dps class doesn't seem likely but that's because you've never seen it done before.
Um....that already exists....Shamans; no tank off spec, just a pair of DPS specs and a Heal spec. At the same time, you don't just throw existing lore out the window for no reason, because 'it's cool/could be cool'.
Post by
759807
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Nathanyal
What lore am i throwing out the window?
That Warlocks, the masters of the demonic arts, can actually heal other players.
Just because the class uses one ability to heal, doesn't mean they should heal other classes. The same as those that can pseudo-tank if they need to, doesn't mean they need a tank spec of their own.
I love playing my mage, hunter and warlock. If I want to heal, I would go on my shaman, priest, or paladin. It wouldn't hurt if mages had more ways of healing themselves, but they don't need another spec to heal other players.
Adding a fourth spec for each class will just make the game even harder to balance.
Post by
759807
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Nathanyal
If they want more options, level another class. My first toon was a mage. I decided I wanted to try healing, so I leveled a shaman next. When I wanted to tank, I leveled a paladin next. I didn't want my mage to be able to heal others, and I didn't want my shaman to tank. The person who choose a warlock did so because they like to deal damage. If they wanted to tank or heal they could have chose another class.
When I look at certain classes, I see why they are the way they are. I see a mage as someone who controls the arcane magicks, including fire and frost. A warlock as someone with an affinity for the dark arts. A hunter as someone who works with bows and guns to fight. A rogue as someone who hides in the shadows, sneaking around and fighting. I just can't picture them going around and healing.
Can you imagine a rogue going around stabbing people one minute, then serenading them in song to heal them the next? Or a hunter shooting you with "healing" arrows? Or a mage or warlock lighting you on fire and saying "Its okay, it'll make you feel better"?
Why must the classes get another spec? The game is closest to being balanced as it ever been, and you want to complicate the matter.
Like Adamsm said up there:HS should but it doesn't. The fact that a warlock has this 1 ability shows that warlock healing is possible because if it wasn't such a spell wouldn't exist. By that logic, because mages can give food they should be healers.....
Just because they have one ability that heals, does not mean they need an entire spec devoted to healing. The warlock does not use them-self to heal others, they use the souls of those they have killed as a way to heal others.
Post by
678294
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
360595
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Fathersqui
Warriors using arcane to tank; that doesn't seem right, i mean doesn't arcane need mana not rage?
Post by
Nathanyal
Warriors using arcane to tank; that doesn't seem right, i mean doesn't arcane need mana not rage?
Yup. Using arcane magic to tank would be akin to something like a battle-mage. If a warrior doesn't use rage, I don't think you can call them a warrior.
Post by
759807
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
dumac
The fourth specc idea is something that is practical hard to maintain and would be ridden with trouble and not gain a very satisfying result to be worth all that hassle. So that I aint a big fan of.
However the first idea with renaming specc to fit more into a lore purpose on the class you play as, would be sweet in my opinion. Especially if you added that you gain a title then you have the specc correlating to name of specc. Like then you in ret specc you gain the title who in ret tree is called "Inquistor", but once you change to prot you gets it replaced with "Cavalier". The name of the suggestion you made is not perfect and would be needed to remade several time until right name for specc is found but the idea there got potential to be appreciated.
Another strong point is that is pure cosmetic while boosting your self respect as that role quite well, like changing your hair and facial hair is in the game now. A fun way to personalize you character more. It is not a game breaking ability at all and most likely not too hard to implant if they wanted too.
So the first idea gets a thumbs up for me!
Post by
Nathanyal
But i guess there's no reasoning with you so let's put it to the side.
Ha good one, I gave plenty of reasons why we shouldn't have a fourth spec. Adamsm also gave several reasons why it wouldn't work.
If anyone here is not being reasonable its the OP. Adding a fourth spec at this point in the game may just break it entirely. No need to let each class do at least 2 roles, pure DPS are there because some people don't like to heal or tank. If they want to heal or tank, then level something else. If they want a mage that heals, then play another game. That isn't how WoW is setup.
As for renaming the specs. Why? That would be work that didn't need to be done.
Post by
759807
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Nathanyal
As for renaming specs - lol why are you concerned about work being done? It's not like you're the one doing it!
And that mentality is why there is no need for a fourth spec. Because you don't have to do the work that involves making every class have a fourth spec, you don't care how it happens. As long as you get to play that fourth spec, that is all that matters. The devs will have to work out entire new abilities, as well as trying to balance them with each other as well as existing specs. This alone will require years of testing to make it as balanced as it is now. And now is the closest the game has been to balanced since it started almost 8 years ago.
I would like Blizz to expand on existing classes. But adding another spec for each class isn't the way to do it. Especially if that new spec doesn't fit in with the existing ones. If you want a 4th spec added to each class, at least make it believable.
Warriors that use the arcane to tank? I would rather a mage get that and have it listed as a battle-mage type ordeal. Like I posted earlier.Warriors using arcane to tank; that doesn't seem right, i mean doesn't arcane need mana not rage?
Yup. Using arcane magic to tank would be akin to something like a battle-mage. If a warrior doesn't use rage, I don't think you can call them a warrior.
Hunters that shoot other people with arrows to heal them? The only thing that could work is if they shot actual syringes into their teammates. But I don't see hunters as doctors, so again this doesn't fit in.
If you want to think up of a 4th spec for each class, at least make it somewhat believable.
Post by
759807
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
Primarily because most of the specs are named after classes from the WoW RPG.
Post by
Nathanyal
The thing is WoW isn't Rift or RoM, it is a game of its own. In the WoW universe there is no such thing as a Void Knight. There are no Scouts. Why would adding it to WoW make it any better? In WoW warriors are the brutal fighters. They use anger and rage to power their attacks. Hunters are either master archers or caught up in nature, dealing with their pets or survival instincts. They don't heal others.
And I'm not arguing against a 4th spec. I'm arguing about how you decided on a class's 4th spec. Mages and warlocks shouldn't have a healing spec as a fourth. But they could do tanking, such as the arcane tank or the demon tank. As for your other suggestions, some of them are okay. People have played as a shockadin and wouldn't mind having a spec devoted to that. Some players like doing damage/healing as a AA/A disc priest. Some people might want to do Frost DK tanking again. Some would like for Shamans to be able to tank.
I'm not against the idea of a fourth spec, I'm against the idea of it being something the class isn't meant to be. I don't see a mage using their magics for anything other than offense and defense, not for healing. The same with warlocks and hunters. As for rogues being bards. No, I cannot see them going around and singing. Some people would rather a bard be another class, with their on dps and healing trees.
And you never gave a good reason as to why they need to be renamed? There is nothing wrong with how they are now. Change for the sake of change isn't always a good thing.
I haven't played Rift myself, but I have read what others thought about it. The one thing I noticed is that yes they do have all those different combinations, but there are so many to choose from that it can get overwhelming. And when you get right down to it, there is always one combination that works better than the others, and that is the one the majority will pick if they want to be the best they can be.
Post by
lonewolfe31705
Okay Halduron, you have a good idea....just not for WoW. The reason Rift, RoM, BG, and all those other games have so many options and classes, and fancy titles is they have no true lore to back them up. World of Warcraft is a MMO based off a franchise of games and novels that span almost 20 years. (Warcraft, Orcs and Humans was released in 1994 and over 30 books have been published.) This is what drives a lot of the player base to push back on ideas like this....we love our lore. Don't break it, don't twist it, don't add Void Knights just because they sound cool.
When you have an established lore like this, you don't just go and change it to give "more options". That would be like opening a restaurant that serves $3 burgers one day and $100 caviar the next. Yeah, you have more options, but is it a good thing? Nope
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.